The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-01-19
SUPREME COURT CASES
Reported for The Clarion BY w. r. Harper
Atiornsy-st-Lsw, Jackson, Miss.
october rerm-Isse.
LANsrAFF & Co,

LASsrAFF & Co,
vs..
Snx, KRoUsE & Co.
Appeal from the circuit court of Choc-
taw county. Hon. c. Il. CAMPBELL, Judge.
Sweatman, Trottes & Trotter, for the
appellants.
On December Il, 1885, Silk, krouse
& Co. shipped to Reed & Reed, box Of
goods by railroad company, to be de-
nyered at Alderman, station on the
line of the Canton, Aberdeen and Nash
Vile railroad. On Dec. 81, 1880, Lang
staff Il Co. levied an attachment on
these goods in the hands of the agent OF
the railroad company. Before this at,
taehment had been levied > the Reeds had
applied 10 the agent for the goods, pald
the freight due thereon, and recelpted
for the goods on the books OF the COM
pany, at the same time remarklng that
Iney would leave the goods with the
agent until their wagon came. After
tue Reeds had gone, the agent opened
MS mail and found a letter from the
agent OF the railroad at Odln, ILL.,, IN
slrucung MIN not 10 deliver The goods
20 Reed Il Reed, as they were Claimed
by the shippers. Tnis letter had b.-en
received but not opened early that morn
ing, and before the denyery 10 the Reeds,
Sux, kruuse u Go lnlerposed their claim
on tue goods aud the circuit judge iounu
Tor them. The plaintiffs in attachment
appealed.
ARNOLD, j., delivered the opinion OF
the court.
| The right of stoppage in transltu is
| favored IN law, and may be exercised at
any time until the goods have come into
the actual or constructive possession OF
the buyer, or, as otherwise expressed, the
right may be exercised as long as the
goods remain in the possession OF the
carrier, as carrier.
When the right of stoppage exists, 1t
is paramount 10 the CLAIM OF judgment
or attaching creditors of the vendee, and
it cannot be Invested by the goods being
levied on under execution or attachment
in favor of such creditors. Morris V.
Shryock, 80 Miss, $50.
No particular mode Is prescribed by
law for the assertion of the right, but
to do effectually, it is essential that the
vendor shall, before the goods are dellv'
cred to the vendee, give notice TO the
carrier or person In the immediate Gus
tody of the goods, not to deliver them
and if a servant has the custody OF the
goods, and notice be given to his prinei
pal, il must be in time to enable him
| with reasonable diligence, to prevent q
delivery to the vendee. Kent, Oh, U
BENJAMIN on Sales, etc., $50.
These conclusions are not disputed
here, but it is insisted by appellants thai
) the right of stoppage was defeated by
constructive possession of the goods oy
vendee, before notice was given TO tht
carrier or person in the immediate Gus
tody of the goods, to stop them, and be
fore the attachment was levied, and II
, this position the law is with the appel
lants.
1t was said by the Court in Whitehead
VS.. Anderson, 9 Muson 81 Welsby, OF
that constructive possession by the
vendee, which supersedes the right o.
, stoppage, exists "when the carrier enter:
expressly or by implication, into new
, agreement, distinct from the orlglna
e contract for carriage, to hold the good
e for the consignee, as his agent, not TO
i the purpose of expedIting them to the
1 place of original destination, pursuan
F. to that contract, but in new characte
for the purpose of custody, on his &C
count, and subject to some new or fur
Their order to be given to him..
We accept this as true and approved
Interpretation of what is meant by con
structive possession in a contract be
tween the vendor and yendee, or attach
= ing creditors of the vendee when tn
right of stoppage in transitu is invoked
Benjamin on sales, $40, $40; 2 Kent
: Jas; Lick barron VS.. Mason, l Smith L
: cases, 1902, 1244, 1915.
The application of the principle to thu
. facts of record here, is fatal 20 appel
!. lees. In the case before us the goods
! were not in the possession of the car
| rier, as carrier, when they we're attach
: ed. Tney had reached their destination
1 BY rail, and the liability of the carrier
r as carrier, had been terminated by tn
acts of its agent and the yendees. Tn
u pay ment of the freight, and the receip
+ for the goods by the vendees, and leay
g ing them in the railroad depot until the.
we're sent for by the vendees, constitut
Z ed the railroad company the agent o
the vendees, not for the transportation
but for the custody of the goods. Ben
iamin on, Sales, secs, $40. $40, $50;
Kent, 545; Lickbarron VS.. Mason,
Smiths Law Cas-. 1902, 1874, 1916. Re
| versed.